iamshack

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:08 PM) The voice of reason. The people who don't like the Hudson deal are not complaining because of Hudson's talent. It's the way he fits into the team's payroll next season that made him more valuable. That simply cannot be ignored.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Instead of Crede's Crew we could form some sort of anti-Myers crew. Who can think of a good name? So say we acquire Myers for prospects, and it turns out that Myers is pitching in Game 4 of the ALDS, in which we are trailing in the series 2-1 to Tampa. Do you think you would find it incredibly hard to cheer for him then? And that goes to any members of the crew that would like to reply...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) Contrary to this boards belief Dan Hudson is not better than Joe Saunders. So unless the Sox had a Joe Saunders what the D-Backs got for Haren is irrelevant. Not to mention KW probably offered Hudson to numerous different teams, and most likely very few wanted to give him great value. It even appears the nats who want to dump salary dont want Hudson. /shrugs Maybe he was no better than a Saunders type, but it's the cost...if you can get average ML innings at the league minimum, you are doing extremely well for yourself.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) Didn't Castro beat up a prostitute or something along those lines? Therapist was accused of no such thing...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) I think Rizzo getting Ramos from the Twins probably empowered his line of thinking that he can ask for the moon from a team and get it Am I the only one who isn't that impressed with Ramos? I will feel like that was a pretty good get for the Twinkies.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) You guys are welcome to feel that way, but I find that a little sad. I don't need angels, but I refuse to root for the success of complete scumbags like that. I just can't do it. AJ is an "asshole" in the sense that he is annoying, plays a little dirty, etc. I can handle that no problem. But that's a long way from beating up your wife in public. And I can respect you feeling that way. It's just a personal thing. Personally, I stopped looking at athletes as my role models when I was about 20 I think. When I want to read about human beings that I truly admire, I look to the clergy...oh wait...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) The wife-beater? That would piss me off. I'd love to get Dunn, but Myers is a scumbag and I don't want him near this team. I don't care if he is a scum. I cheer these guys on to play baseball. I'm not married to him, nor do I know anyone that is. Obviously I would prefer he not beat her, but my primary concern is to get to the postseason.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) It isn't just you, and your one of the few posters I like Mark. Just alittle thing I've generally seen for a while that has really irked myself (and I'll just speak for myself this time) or little snark comments that of course will go unnoticed with a poster with some power. I've seen far too many times a guy gets alittle power on a message board, and clearly it gets to their head even if they don't realize it. BTW I just don't like that second paragraph from you man. Reminds me of that incident with Milk's friendly "couched" comment (in green tile no less) to Jim not too long ago in a thread. You don't deserve a letter/warning though, just like J4L didn't deserve one. Trust me, and let me make this clear for everyone here that is sees some inequity between the regular posters and the mods/admins and others deemed to be "privileged." Everyone ultimately gets dealt with, whether it is seen publicly or not.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:51 PM) First off, I would just like to say that the conversation we have had today/tonight has been outstanding IMO, and is alot better than how this thread started to go (not pointing at you J4L, just the few posts made in reaction to yours). I do enjoy your posts Iamshack as you bring a unique perspective and insight into the conversation. That said, I had pointed out earlier that the biggest problem with the Sox is that they dont draft/develop well enough. I could care less if the prospects are brought up to contribute to the team or if they are used as trade bait as long as the team is in first place. The problem I have is that the Sox dont draft/develop well and now were in a position where making a move for a Fielder/Dunn would be extremely beneficial for this year. The problem is, the Sox would be handcuffed financially next year because they would be trading the only prospects that could have an impact in a starting role next year in a deal for Fielder/Dunn. If they had the depth in the farm system, they could make a move for one of those guys and still have enough pieces left int he minors to fill holes on the team next year. The Rangers could still easily trade for anothr big piece if they wanted to, since Lee only cost them another 1.5 mil, and they still have a ton of prospects left. They have the flexibility to do so, the Sox do not. I am also not trying to label the Rangers as a team to emulate, because I am still skeptical of their team. There is no doubt though that they are young, talented, and have the ability to add to that team and make it a force in the playoffs. Russ, they cannot add another player of any value unless the other team eats all the salary. Now maybe that's because they sunk all their money into international scouting and the draft. Maybe that's because they've dished out millions in signing bonuses that we have not. Maybe that's because they've failed to develop or acquire any significant young SP despite all these wonderful arms of theirs we have heard they have in their system. I'm just pointing out, I think there is a LOT of money wasted on trying to maintain a solid system and even more opportunity costs involved which ultimately can hurt your big league club a lot. I'm not sure the argument is as cut and dry and many here would like to believe.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:40 PM) Don't worry. You both are not the only ones and I'm not just talking about myself from what I've noticed over time. I'll leave it at that. Well, if the other mods/admins decide to suspend me, then I will deal with the consequences. But that is for them to decide, not you, Gerry, or you, Greg. Secondly, simply because insults are couched in friendly language does not make them non-actionable. We are all big boys here. The meaning and intent is every bit or more important than the language used.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) Wow. Step out for a while and come back to this? Are you kidding me? You act like I insulted your religion or something. Anyway, I'm just gonna remove myself from this thread before things get more exacerbated than they already are. But this definitely reinforces the fact that mods/admins play by a different set of rules than us "mortals." I would've already gotten a PM alerting me of a suspension if I had come at somebody like this. Oh, so it's alright for you to say "Some are going to stroke that 2005 title until they're 6 feet under," as if I am some delusional fool who ignores the current situation and reminisces on 2005 while holding my penis? I apologize for stepping over the line in my response to you, but I think my body of work in this forum suggests I am far from the person you were suggesting with that bulls*** provocation.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:15 PM) You dont seem to be able to grasp/accept the fact that a strong minor league system can either deliver youth on your team (like Beckham) or impact players via trade (like Lee). I very much grasp the concept, Russ. Where we are failing to have a meeting of the minds, so to speak, is because you are insinuating that there are no downsides to having a franchise built on developing the majority of your talent from within. First of all, Smoak was the Rangers 1b of the future. My guess is that they would have preferred to keep him around as opposed to having to deal him for a 3 month rental, even if it was for the great Cliff Lee. They have no chance of resigning Lee, and so unless he helps deliver an World Series title this season, they will have traded their 1b of the future for 3 a chance that didn't pan out. Now if their system was as loaded with players able to help their MLB team as much as you contend it is, one would venture to guess that they could have enticed either the Mariners or some other team to trade them an ace without having to trade their 1b of the future. Shockingly, they were forced to do the same thing we would have had to do - open up a hole somewhere else and try to fill it with it someone who is probably not going to get the job done adequately. Whether they have some remaining depth to pull off another trade to replace Smoak seems pretty irrelevant, since they do not have the money to take on anymore payroll. They will probably have to go with Davis for the remainder of the year or acquire someone like Mike Lowell because their organization is bankrupt. Secondly, trying to develop your own talent has many pitfalls, from prospects that cause you to let other producing veterans walk away because the prospect was blocked, to prospects that perform one year and then never again as the league adjusts to them and you are forced to sit through years of below replacement value performance in the name of being "patient," to trades you didn't make because that prospect was just too untouchable to move. With the rate of attrition as high as it is, I would rather just trade 95% of them for players that give you some sort of performance certainty than to mess around with trying to guess which prospects will pan out and not pan out. I'm not claiming, however, that having a good farm system is a bad thing. What I am claiming is that there are a lot of things this organization does very well - far better than other organizations do. And while the farm system is not one of them, I'm not so sure that I would rather we be worse off at the other things we do well in the name of improving our farm system.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:49 PM) What? Russell Martin's first year in the major leagues was 2006. When do you consider the end of the steroid era? I mean, they started the random testing in 2004. Well, his OPS went from .843 in 2006 to .680 last year and this year. Those are his age 26-27 year old seasons. The reason he sucks, I could care less. The point is that this is the price you pay in opportunity costs for developing your own players. I don't know how many times I have to point this out.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:41 PM) Shack, you know I love you, but the turning point in the Lee negotations was when Texas decided to include Smoak. Smoak was thought of higher by the Mariners than any other prospects they could have possibly received. That may be the case...I'm not claiming that Smoak wasn't a great prospect. What I am claiming is that the White Sox could have acquired Lee by trading Beckham and opened up the same hole as the Rangers did. The difference is that the White Sox don't need pitching as badly as the Rangers do. Now whether we will address our offense as the Rangers did their pitching, remains to be seen. But simply because the Rangers shoot their wad on a top prospect does not mean that the other prospects will develop into anything. Irregardless, I don't even know why I am engaging in this nonsense. Certainly the Rangers have what is perceived to be a stronger farm system than the White Sox. But I follow baseball to cheer on the major league team. If success to you, equals who has the highest rated system, by all means, let's pack your bags and send you to Arlington. Meanwhile, I'll stay here and cheer on the major league team that has produced results.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:33 PM) Because the Mariners wanted him and they had enough leverage to get him. Cmon, really? You're going to ask that? That's just bs...if the Rangers have 6 or 7 other great pieces they could have moved them instead. The Mariners were not obsessed with Smoak by any means. They were interested in major league ready players, and apparently the Rangers had just as few in their system as we have.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) Who still has potential, and if not, they still have plenty of pieces in the farm to trade for a 1b. Then why didn't they trade all these other "pieces" instead of Smoak in the first place?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:01 PM) They had depth in their organization to replace Smoak and not worry too much about the short term/future implications that come with that trade. The Sox dont have much depth at all behind Beckham. No, they have the illusion of depth. They have Chris Davis.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:42 PM) Some are going to stroke that 2005 title until they're 6 feet under. We're not some kinda top-flight organization because of one title in the last 90+ years. Oh that's f***ing bulls*** and you know it. First of all, a title is a title. And if you're going to insult me for that being the most cherished moment in my sports fan life, than f*** you. What the hell are you watching for? Secondly, the Rangers have how many division titles in the last 30 years?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) You just reinforced my point, the Sox werent able to acquire Lee because they didnt have enough in the system and they couldnt detract from the MLB team by losing Beckham. The Sox overall have a pretty bleak history too, but Im not talking about history, Im talking about improving the franchise now. Not true. The Rangers had a bigger need in the starting rotation than we did, and thus were forced to open up another hole in order to fill the one in their rotation. We did not have the hole in our pitching staff, and thus it would have been silly to open up another hole just so we could add another SP. I personally think Smoak has looked even worse than Beckham did when he was lost in April and May, and so I don't know if that will end up costing the Rangers. But make no mistake about it. They traded their equivalent of Gordon for the chance at winning it all this year. Kenny went out and got Peavy last year so we wouldn't have to.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:22 PM) Yet, they were able to trade for Cliff Lee and launch themselves into top 3 AL team talks. We could have done the same thing. We were actually reported to have been "right there" in the talks. We just didn't want to move Beckham. Keep in mind we have been competitive and have won a title. The Rangers have done nothing in like, their entire history in the league. So because they were able to acquire Cliff Lee this season we should try and replicate their model? Give me a break.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) I think there's a difference between what people like Keith Law thinks and what you actually have. The Cubs' minor league system has always been overrated. EVERY SYSTEM IS OVERRATED. The internet has made everyone an armchair GM. Someone reads some glowing reviews on BA and suddenly the Rangers have the best system in the history of the game, fully stocked with certain future all-stars, even though none of us has ever seen any of them play.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 08:12 PM) Other than Peavy, and that was more of a case of them wanting to dump salary, you have to go back to 2004 the last time the Sox added a legitimate talent at the deadline. Like fathom said, if this is the way we're going to operate year after year, we have to have better talent. Well, considering the fact that in 2007 we weren't competitive, in 2006 we were 56-27 or something at the break, and in 2005, we won the World Series, I don't really see where you're going with that.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 08:08 PM) In Castro, Colvin and Cashner, they've got a nice little core. They're in much better shape in the young talent department than they were a couple years ago. But 5 years before that they had one of the best rated systems in baseball. And look at how many great players they produced.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 07:48 PM) The Rays, Rangers, Reds and Rockies (two playoff births in the last three years) are not in first place or near it because of FA signings. The Dodgers have produced Kershaw/Billingsley/Broxton/Kemp/Ethier/Loney/Martin. Not sure where you're coming from there. I agree about the Angels. The Rays have picked 1st or close to 1st for the better part of a decade. Throw them out of the equation. The Rangers/Reds/Rockies have what to show for all their magnificent development of players? What have they done that we have not? The Dodgers did not develop Ethier. They received him in trade for Milton Bradley. While they did develop those other guys, they also have had numerous other guys that have not panned out and they have lost out on because of opportunity costs. Kershaw is outstanding, I wanted us to draft him, unfortunately he went 7th overall. We picked 29th that year. Billingsly has been a nice pitcher. So we traded Brandon McCarthy for John Danks. What's the difference? Jonothan Broxton. We claimed Bobby Jenks off waivers. Very similar players. James Loney is a very nice hitter but has no power and is basically Mark Grace squared instead of the amazing player he was once supposed to be. Again, opportunity costs...it's taken them 4-5 years to figure this out. Martin is a nice little catcher, but shockingly has regressed badly since the steroid era. Hmm. I mean having your own players is nice and all, but it's costing them in other ways that it is not costing us. You can't ignore that.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 07:46 PM) I get where you're going at, and I'm kinda with you. Thing is, KW needs a farm system because that's how he makes trades. We don't contend for free agents and or hard signability/high reward draftees, so KW needs that farm system in order to make trades. Unfortunately, the farm system is pretty dried up. And how long have we been hearing about the farm system drying up? Every year it's the apocalypse is coming! There will be no talent left to trade! And then, a few guys come along and we suddenly have a few more pieces to trade. I want to have talent to develop as much as the next guy. And I hope that we do devote more resources to doing so. But this fantastical idea that these other organizations have farm systems that have been producing all-star caliber players one year after another is pure fiction. The rates of attrition are so great that even systems that look loaded and are rated as so usually don't end up producing huge quantities of above-average major league talent. All you have to do is go back and peruse Baseball America over the past 10 years and the systems that were rated highly and try to find all these outstanding MLB all stars that came from those systems. You'll find them to be full of names of guys that you've either never heard of, or that you haven't heard of in a long, long time (like Obi Wan Kenobi). And for every player we don't seem to be able to develop ourselves, we do find them in other ways, whether they are young guys that are a bit down on their luck in other organizations, or guys that are coming off injuries or a down year with something to prove. I'm certainly not arguing that a farm system isn't important, but there are a s***load of costs associated with trying to develop your own talent. Look at what we have gone through with Beckham this year. Now imagine that times 2 or 3 every year with these kids. Sometimes, it's much easier, and much less expensive, to go with the veteran talent over the young kids just because of the opportunity costs involved.